Baseball is an exhilarating yet frustrating mess of contradictions, and this fan is caught in the trap—like millions of other men and women (save George Will, whose pompous moral certitude about the sport is immutable)—of trying to reconcile “purist” instincts with the undeniable improvements in the game over the past several decades. Last weekend, for example, while watching a slew of inter-league contests via the MLB “Extra Innings” package (which, regardless of varying prices depending on your locale and cable provider, costs less for an entire season of televised games than one day at a stadium for a family of four), I finally switched gears and figured it was time for the National League to acquiesce and adopt the still-controversial designated hitter rule.

Heresy, I guess, but what the hell; if you’re a Milwaukee Brewers’ devotee, wouldn’t it be delightful to see the world’s tubbiest vegetarian, Prince Fielder, in the dugout, contemplating his next plate appearance, instead of anchored at first base? One league’s dominance over the other usually runs in cycles, but the N.L. seems mired in a slump that’s likely to run longer than the Great Depression, and this was evident once again over the weekend. Sure, the strategy required of an N.L. manager is more intricate than A.L. counterparts with double-switches and more sacrifice bunts, but the two leagues might be more competitive if older free agents (or crummy fielders) could extend their careers as a DH.

That said, and here’s one of those curveballs, I can’t stand inter-league play, even though it pumps up attendance and allows fans to see star players who were once a mystery aside from the All-Star game (which, of course, has devolved into a meaningless exhibition game instead of a proud showcase) or the World Series. My 13-year-old son, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting next to in our matching easy chairs in the homestead’s television room, adamantly disagrees, but I chalk that up to his participation in a fantasy league with a bunch of school buddies. I just don’t like the disruption of the season’s rhythm, the fake “rivalries” cooked up by MLB schedule makers—sure, the Cubs and White Sox make sense, but the Rockies and Tigers?—for the sake of novelty and profit.

The Braves’ Chipper Jones complained last year about how his club drew much tougher opponents than the N.L. East rival Mets, but that’s kind of bogus since the tough teams vary from season to season. What bothers me is that when playoff spots are at stake I’d rather have my team, the Red Sox, play more times against their competitors; the Sox, for instance, won’t square off against the Tigers again in 2008. Lucky for Boston that Detroit was off to a feeble start when they played their paltry seven games, but when the wild card is up for grabs in September and both teams are possible contenders for that slot, it seems like a waste that 18 games were blown on inter-league play. It’s a losing battle, and hard to argue when the Washington Nationals drew their best crowds of the years since opening day playing the Orioles, but I’ll continue to carp.

Now, I’m a strong advocate of today’s fans having a passing familiarity with the game’s history, but is anyone else irritated by the once quaint, now obnoxious practice of teams sponsoring “throwback” days, when, say, the San Diego Padres wear their comical uniforms from the 1970s or, even worse, players donning replicas of the baggy shirts and pants of the 1930s, which is meant to honor the Negro Leagues of that era? There’s no argument here about the importance of recognizing baseball’s vicious and long stain of segregation—far worse than the drug “scandals” of today or Barry Bonds’ breaking Hank Aaron’s “hallowed” home run record—but that can be accomplished by any number of other, less confusing, gestures.

I was watching the Rays-Pirates game on Saturday night and it was nearly impossible to tell which team was which: the Bucs wore the uniforms of the Pittsburgh Crawfords, while the Rays donned those of the Jacksonville Red Caps, and it was all a blur. I can’t even imagine what Vladimir Guerrero, the great Angel, would look like in a 30s uniform: with his dreadlocks and shaggy appearance he already looks like a hobo out in right field. Dan Haren (who could double for one of the cavemen in the Geico commercials), Manny Ramirez, Jonny Gomes and Henry Blanco aren’t far behind, and that’s just off the top of my head. (That said, it’d be even worse if, by some stroke of bad luck, Vlad ended up playing for the Yanks and was forced to conform to the Steinbrenner family’s dress code, imposed, ostensibly, to reinforce the team’s image of “class.”)

On the topic of Barry Bonds, unlike the purists who’d just as soon see him banished to whatever the baseball equivalent of Siberia is (I guess Rafael Palmeiro could provide him with a map), I’d like to see him land a job. I fully believe there’s collusion among the owners to keep him out of the game, even though his agent has told all 30 MLB teams that Bonds will play for the minimum salary and then donate it to charity. Joe Posnanski, a deserved baseball blogosphere star who follows the Royals, made the case for Kansas City adding old Pumpkin Head to their roster in a very convincing post on June 26. He wrote, after acknowledging the obligatory downside of such a move—the booing, Royals fans boycotting games, not to mention Bonds’ age—that the publicly sullen slugger could give K.C. a needed, uh, boost.

Posnanski: “One, as far as I know, Barry Bonds didn’t kill anybody. He didn’t assault anybody. He didn’t throw any games. He didn’t bet on any games. He didn’t get caught drinking and driving. He didn’t have any false gods, didn’t make any idols, didn’t covet any neighbor’s donkeys, didn’t steal, didn’t do much of anything that more or less half the other ballplayers in the game are doing.” I loved the DWI swipe at Tony LaRussa, which was thinly veiled, but his logic makes sense. In fact, I’ve long been advocating to fellow Bosox fans that GM Theo Epstein suck it up and sign Bonds as at least a temporary replacement for David Ortiz, who’s on the DL right now and probably won’t return until August (and it’s anybody’s guess how effective he’ll be). You can imagine the uproar in Boston, but it’s not like that city’s sports franchises have a pristine reputation. It’s about winning in October.

Back and forth, once more. I read a travel article earlier this month in The New York Times about the high quality of food now available at an increasing number of ballparks. I don’t blame the reporter, Peter Meehan, who’s a restaurant critic, but the following paragraph made me gag. “The sandwich was perfectly executed: an overgenerous helping of fresh Dungeness crab meat, dressed in a gossamer coating of mayonnaise and piled between two warm slices of sourdough bread that had been scrubbed with garlic and griddled crisp.” Meehan and his girlfriend also had a split of champagne and a “tall, ice-cold glass of hoppy Anchor Steam Beer” during their visit to San Francisco’s AT&T Park.

I understand the motive behind the bump up in concession stand offerings, the fireworks, the scoreboards showing highlights of a team’s past glories, the shitty classic rock played between innings and the petting zoos, among other abominations, but I don’t have to like it. And I don’t. Given my druthers this is what would be available at ballparks: beer, dogs, peanuts, Cokes and maybe cotton candy for the kids. Who wants to kill an inning waiting on line for a crab sandwich, or plate of sushi or sweet-fried plantains; isn’t food a minor part of watching a game? Well, obviously not, but it still gets my goat, particularly when I shell out eight bucks for the “chicken tenders” my older son insists on having each time we go to Baltimore’s Camden Yards.

One more thing: count me out on the issue of replays to review controversial home run calls or whether a ball is fair or foul. The amount of time consumed making a determination on a decision will be interminable—just like the NFL—and means more commercials on television. Why not just spring for two extra umps, like in the post-season, to man left and right fields? I’m no longer a Luddite when it comes to baseball—as my views on the designated hitter and Bonds demonstrate—but there are limits.

Older Sports

Newer Sports

Discussion

First off, though he does look cool, Vladi really ought to cut his hair and beard, every time I see him I feel like saying, "Sorry, all out of change." And, now, Dan Haren is by far my least favorite NL pitcher, and I loved the Geico comparison. Now, this may be just the hate that I built up for this player, but doesn't Jorge Posada look like he should be in a mental intistuition? If the NL got a DH, then they would be much more of a threat to us during interleague, the All Star game (Like I really care about that, but the Sox do so much better at home, so maybe I should start worrying), and the Playoffs/World Series. On the food front, I'm with you there, I just get a bag of peanuts, two dogs with everything, and a coke. But, if it beefs up attendance, what do I care, no skin off my nose. And, finally, about the bonds issue, you're right, it's all about winning, and if we do that, I'm happy.

Boy, this article is a little all over the place, but definitely touches on some hot button issues. Here's my take: Milwaukee was a long time AL city (until the D-backs/Rays addition) and would be a good case study on whether NL or AL baseball is a) more enjoyable for fans, b) more competitive or c) leads to higher revenues. Personally, I find the NL game much more fun to watch. As for interleague play, the fans love it and there are some real natural rivalries between teams, but it does take away from other traditional matchups (see: Tigers vs. AL East). I think that they should just balance the un-balanced schedule a little more to make up for it. Throwback jerseys are great, in moderation (love those baby blues!). As for the Negro League tributes? Contrary to your point, it is excellent the MLB recognizes the importance of the Negro Leagues. Contrary to popular belief, Negro League teams were points of pride for the African American community, fans of all races attended games, and the Negro League teams were often superior to their Major League Counterparts. I don't think that Negro League days highlight the segregationist past but rather honor the contributions and history of African Americans in baseball. If Barry Bonds has truly offered to play for the pro-rated minimum and hasn't been signed by a contending team, I call collusion (esp. after Frank Thomas was signed immediately by the A's...a BAY AREA team). Diverse food offerings, especially those that highlight local cuisine is perfectly fine--they'll always sell hot dogs and beer, so I'm good. Replay needs to be done in such a way so as to minimally impact the game. I say have an ump "in the booth" that can essentially watch TV and then call down the correct call, but use it for Home Runs ONLY. Those are my two cents on the many, many points of this article.

Well now, I don't really care for the Vlad comments since he's my favorite player. Does he look a little shaggy? Yeah, so what? Since when does that affect his performance. I love watching Vlad at bat, capable of hitting even a pitch-out. Just the most exciting player to see at the plate, with the possible exception of Ichiro, who has incomparable grace.

dtdowntown: I think you misconstrued my point about recognizing the Negro Leagues in regards to the history of the game. I find the throwback uniforms confusing and a novelty whose impact is probably lost on most fans. As I wrote a few months ago on Splice, I think it's borderline criminal that Curt Flood, who suffered through heinous abuse in the South (as did other black players) and then was instrumental in the institution of free agency, is not only not in the Hall of Fame, but that a bust of him should be in every MLB clubhouse. Jackie Robinson, of course, is not only the symbol of baseball integration, but probably the gutsiest player in baseball history, and MLB has done a late, but decent job in honoring him. More needs to be accomplished: I just don't think the circus like atmosphere of baggy uniforms does the job.

Russ, I agree that those old uniforms can be confusing, but I think that you may have actually misconstrued my point. MLB does a great job of recognizing Jackie Robinson, and the legacy of Curt Flood is woefully under appreciated, but they have almost no relation to the Negro Leagues that flourished in the 30s and 40s, in particular, and the impact those teams had on the African American community in general. I'll say it again, the Negro Leagues were not about exclusion--that was MLBs job--they were a very positive reaction to the times and are too often viewed with a negative connotation. I think that MLB is just now starting to realize the important contributions that African Americans made to the game before Jackie Robinson and the casual fan should take notice as well, even if it requires crazy-colored, baggy uniforms.

Well, you can't force the casual fan to do anything. And I agree that the Negro Leagues were a vital part not only of baseball history but of American cultural history as well. I'm not sure, however, that the spectators at those games were as integrated as you say. Who knows, we both weren't around then (though it would've been cool to see those games), but in all the footage I've seen of, say, the Monarchs, I see mostly black faces. Admittedly, there's not a lot of footage that exists, but Ken Burns did a great job on the subject.

Russ, I recommend contacting Rob Ruck at the University of Pittsburgh about this. He is the author of "Sandlot Seasons, Black Sport in Pittsburgh" and is somewhat of an authority on the dynamics of the Negro Leagues. I had a wonderful conversation with him over the phone earlier this year for a project that I was working on and he really enlightened me to the aspects of the Negro Leagues that most people simply don't know about. Yes, those games were cultural events for the black community, but many teams barnstormed across the country to diverse audiences. If you look up the Birmingham Black Barons, for example, you will find that their games often received better attendance and press than their white minor league counterparts, and not all from black patrons. As I have now completely strayed from the point of your article, I will dial myself back and leave the floor open for people to comment on some of your other points.

I tend to agree that the NL should adopt the DH, although I don't feel strongly about it. People always talk about how the NL is more "pure" by allowing the pitchers to hit, but pitchers basically don't practice hitting anymore. Gone are the days when Babe Ruth could win a game by himself through pitching and hitting. And sure, there is more strategy in the NL, but sometimes that strategy is just "Ok, I can throw a fastball down the middle to this guy because he's the number 8 hitter and the pitcher is up next for an automatic out." How is that more "pure" than an AL manager having to manuever through a lineup of 9 solid hitters? Plus, I enjoy seeing older hitters extend their careers by DH-ing and not risking (or aggravating) injuries in the field.

I'm also a big proponent of the DH in the NL. I find no joy in watching pitchers don warm-up jackets in the on-deck circle and then flail around in the box. I know that a few can hit but the vast marjority either embarrass themselves or, even worse, don't even seem to try.

Implementing the DH in the National League hardly seems like an issue for the ages, especially since fans of all stripes have gotten use to the AL's adoption from the early'70s. Come on, it pits a team's best offenive and defensive (pitching) thrusts against those of its opponent - more or less the essence of baseball. And by having the DH in both leagues it allows fans to compare their own team to the other 29 on more of an apple vs. apple basis.Not all additions to the ballpark experience are good (like incessant loudspeaker music during every down moment of a game) but the DH in both leagues would more uniformly offer what is at the core of the game.Tradition is fine but change can sometimes actually trump it.

It's past time for the DH in both leagues. I wonder if baseball purists in the early 20th century lamented the passing of the "dead ball" era. Somehow, I doubt it. As for another part of this article, I like better food at ballparks. The oft-repeated myth that hot dogs taste better at baseball games drives me crazy because they're plain awful.

DTDowntown: I've never seen Korean soda, but in the Times article I referred to the author was delighted at the offerings at Safeco Field: miso soup, Pocky, edamame, and spicy tuna rolls. Actually, Camden Yards got totally trashed by the writer, saying the crabcake (which was praised by The Baltimore Sun) was the WORST food purchase he made on his eating trek.

I'm not at all surprised that Safeco has a wide range of japanese offerings-it very much keeps with the trend of providing "local" cuisine (to be appreciated by the locals/indicative of the area). I am surprised that the Indians have the same stuff. Good for them, I guess?

The Rockies are out of it, so sure, change the rules. Ban all food. Have Barry Bonds rotate week from week to a different A.L. team. Make Randy Johnson pitch with a bag over his head so we don't have to see that redneck chicken neck. And keep Matt Holliday in Denver.

The MOST important change MLB should make is having playoff and World Series games start at 6 p.m. instead of 8:30. That way I could stay up and watch the whole game on school nights. I don't understand why they don't do it. The Super Bowl is on early in the evening.

where to start? (perhaps you felt the same you sat down to write this column Mr. Smith?) No take on the Negro League, I'm far too new to the sport to hold sway on that count. Agree 100% of the food issue, total, the throwback jerseys and the general circus of the event of the game. Bonds is a sad sad state of affairs. One note that doesnt get mentioned enough, merely assumed is that he was/is a phenomenal ballplayer. given the lust for the dollar in nearly every aspect of the game. Bonds' presence is already a proven economic victory for his employers.collusion abound!and although I follow an AL team I fear NL games to be more entertaining so I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. As an aforementioned newbie I've spent many a game trying to figure out just what is the point of an AL manager? aside from the accepting responsibility for his coaches decisions of course...